Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.
Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.
LOL oh really? So republicans are the ones that are going to fix the wealth gap problem? Lol you people kill me!
Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.
LOL oh really? So republicans are the ones that are going to fix the wealth gap problem? Lol you people kill me!
There is no "wealth gap" problem.
This is merely a political tool used to broaden a voting base.
The fact that you cannot recognize that is sad.
Do you really think an democrat controlled legislature with Obama or another democrat in office is going to get even CLOSE to passing legislation regulating pay or wealth?
Do you really think the federal government will be permitted to get away with such confiscation?
The fundamental basis to capitalism is that everyone has "disposable income".
Never heard that one. The fundamentals of capitalism are private property and free trade.
Okay I'm going to break this down for you.
Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.
Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.
No we haven't regained all the jobs that were lost when more people have stopped looking the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years which skews the UE numbers big time!
UE numbers only count those on unemployment insurance not those that have maxed out their insurance and have stopped looking for work altogether.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2007 on the eve of the recession, there were 146.6 million Americans working. Today, there are 145.8 million Americans in jobs. So nearly 7 years later, we are still 800,000 jobs below the previous peak.
Here is the bottom line. The higher than expected unemployment rate and the lower than expected labor force participation rate has created a jobs deficit of nearly 5.5 million fewer Americans working than should be in this economic recovery. This 5.5 million employment shortfall is the equivalent of the entire population of Colorado. Another way to think of it is that the jobs shortage nationwide is the equivalent of every worker in Ohio losing their job.
Mr. Obama, where are our 5 million missing jobs?
Now attack the source like a good little Obama butt licker.
We have already established job growth hasn't kept up with the growing labor force. My point is that it didn't under Bush either. Not only that, but We lost 3 million jobs in his final months. None of this changes the fact that under Obama 2x more private jobs were created in his first term than both of Bush's. Your source makes no mention of Bush at all. Do I even have to tell you that?
You also bring up overall labor participation. That has been declining before Obama took office. Not only that, but the drop in labor participation is primarily because of retirement and more people going on disability.
When you buy McDonald's at the inflated prices due to overpaid labor instead of healthy vegetable and other non-processed foods, you are wasting income. When you chose to spend $800 because you have to have the iPhone 19 with cranial implant instead of a 19.95 per YEAR phone that connects through an existing computer....you are wasting income.
No we haven't regained all the jobs that were lost when more people have stopped looking the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years which skews the UE numbers big time!
UE numbers only count those on unemployment insurance not those that have maxed out their insurance and have stopped looking for work altogether.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2007 on the eve of the recession, there were 146.6 million Americans working. Today, there are 145.8 million Americans in jobs. So nearly 7 years later, we are still 800,000 jobs below the previous peak.
Here is the bottom line. The higher than expected unemployment rate and the lower than expected labor force participation rate has created a jobs deficit of nearly 5.5 million fewer Americans working than should be in this economic recovery. This 5.5 million employment shortfall is the equivalent of the entire population of Colorado. Another way to think of it is that the jobs shortage nationwide is the equivalent of every worker in Ohio losing their job.
Mr. Obama, where are our 5 million missing jobs?
Now attack the source like a good little Obama butt licker.
We have already established job growth hasn't kept up with the growing labor force. My point is that it didn't under Bush either. Not only that, but We lost 3 million jobs in his final months. None of this changes the fact that under Obama 2x more private jobs were created in his first term than both of Bush's. Your source makes no mention of Bush at all. Do I even have to tell you that?
You also bring up overall labor participation. That has been declining before Obama took office. Not only that, but the drop in labor participation is primarily because of retirement and more people going on disability.
Why do you insist on talking about Bush? Do you honestly think that relinquishes Obama's responsibility?
Five million jobs were lost under Obama, labor participation is the lowest it's been in 36 years, more people are on welfare ( a record 46.7 million people) than at any time in our history, disability claims hit another record and you want to bring up Bush.
I understand that you can't defend Obama any other way but at some point he has to own this economy and I think a year and half into his second term is way past time.
"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.
Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do
Monopolize? No, they earn it. Their employers pay them a wage or salary the employer deems appropriate.
I asked you for ideas. Furthermore I asked you if you thought wealth was better off in the hands of the federal government and why.
Please respond to those questions/statements.
One thing I must point out that given the fact that the top earners of the country bear 70% of the total tax burden, I ask. How much is enough?".....IN your mind when does taxation become confiscatory and for what purpose do you believe extremely high tax rates would be served?
So far, your responses have essentially been "because they have it and they can afford it"..
That doesn't wash. Focus on the revenue issue. Why should all of this extra wealth go to government?
And please do not come back with anything mentioning "leveling the playing field". That's nonsense.
Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.
LOL oh really? So republicans are the ones that are going to fix the wealth gap problem? Lol you people kill me!
There is no "wealth gap" problem.
This is merely a political tool used to broaden a voting base.
The fact that you cannot recognize that is sad.
Do you really think an democrat controlled legislature with Obama or another democrat in office is going to get even CLOSE to passing legislation regulating pay or wealth?
Do you really think the federal government will be permitted to get away with such confiscation?
We have already established job growth hasn't kept up with the growing labor force. My point is that it didn't under Bush either. Not only that, but We lost 3 million jobs in his final months. None of this changes the fact that under Obama 2x more private jobs were created in his first term than both of Bush's. Your source makes no mention of Bush at all. Do I even have to tell you that?
You also bring up overall labor participation. That has been declining before Obama took office. Not only that, but the drop in labor participation is primarily because of retirement and more people going on disability.
Why do you insist on talking about Bush? Do you honestly think that relinquishes Obama's responsibility?
Five million jobs were lost under Obama, labor participation is the lowest it's been in 36 years, more people are on welfare ( a record 46.7 million people) than at any time in our history, disability claims hit another record and you want to bring up Bush.
I understand that you can't defend Obama any other way but at some point he has to own this economy and I think a year and half into his second term is way past time.
Dude this isn't hard to figure out. The 5 million we lost under Obama were connected to the 3 million we lost under bush. Starting from the end of 08 until mid 09 the economy was in a tailspin. The 5 million lost under Obama is not because of Obama.
Why do you insist on talking about Bush? Do you honestly think that relinquishes Obama's responsibility?
Five million jobs were lost under Obama, labor participation is the lowest it's been in 36 years, more people are on welfare ( a record 46.7 million people) than at any time in our history, disability claims hit another record and you want to bring up Bush.
I understand that you can't defend Obama any other way but at some point he has to own this economy and I think a year and half into his second term is way past time.
Dude this isn't hard to figure out. The 5 million we lost under Obama were connected to the 3 million we lost under bush. Starting from the end of 08 until mid 09 the economy was in a tailspin. The 5 million lost under Obama is not because of Obama.
Truth be told my five million wasn't an accurate number it just sounded better than the 4.3 million jobs that were actually lost under Obama. The BLS claims 4.4 million jobs were created under Obama. Most of those are part time jobs due in part to Obamacare, but even using the 4.4 million figure, Obama's net gain is around 125,000. Not hardly enough to keep up with the population. Fact is we need to be seeing at least that many jobs created each month to keep up with the population.
You're trying hard to defend your guy, but the facts just ain't on your side.
.
Dude this isn't hard to figure out. The 5 million we lost under Obama were connected to the 3 million we lost under bush. Starting from the end of 08 until mid 09 the economy was in a tailspin. The 5 million lost under Obama is not because of Obama.
Truth be told my five million wasn't an accurate number it just sounded better than the 4.3 million jobs that were actually lost under Obama. The BLS claims 4.4 million jobs were created under Obama. Most of those are part time jobs due in part to Obamacare, but even using the 4.4 million figure, Obama's net gain is around 125,000. Not hardly enough to keep up with the population. Fact is we need to be seeing at least that many jobs created each month to keep up with the population.
You're trying hard to defend your guy, but the facts just ain't on your side.
.
Lol how about you show me the stats that say bush created more full time jobs than bush? Oh that's right. They don't exist. Secondly, there is no evidence that ObamaCare has had a significant effect on jobs. I know Fox News or Forbes.com will tell you different but you should realize they are full of shit.
Truth be told my five million wasn't an accurate number it just sounded better than the 4.3 million jobs that were actually lost under Obama. The BLS claims 4.4 million jobs were created under Obama. Most of those are part time jobs due in part to Obamacare, but even using the 4.4 million figure, Obama's net gain is around 125,000. Not hardly enough to keep up with the population. Fact is we need to be seeing at least that many jobs created each month to keep up with the population.
You're trying hard to defend your guy, but the facts just ain't on your side.
.
Lol how about you show me the stats that say bush created more full time jobs than bush? Oh that's right. They don't exist. Secondly, there is no evidence that ObamaCare has had a significant effect on jobs. I know Fox News or Forbes.com will tell you different but you should realize they are full of shit.
How about you stop worrying about Bush and defend Obama.
They are full of shit because why? You say so?
Obamacare is a job killer and anyone with half a brain would recognize that.
Is Obamacare A Job Killer? New Estimates Suggest It Might Be
Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO
Lol how about you show me the stats that say bush created more full time jobs than bush? Oh that's right. They don't exist. Secondly, there is no evidence that ObamaCare has had a significant effect on jobs. I know Fox News or Forbes.com will tell you different but you should realize they are full of shit.
How about you stop worrying about Bush and defend Obama.
They are full of shit because why? You say so?
Obamacare is a job killer and anyone with half a brain would recognize that.
Is Obamacare A Job Killer? New Estimates Suggest It Might Be
Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO
Obviously the reason we are taking about Bush is Because that is how our debate began.
How about you stop worrying about Bush and defend Obama.
They are full of shit because why? You say so?
Obamacare is a job killer and anyone with half a brain would recognize that.
Is Obamacare A Job Killer? New Estimates Suggest It Might Be
Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO
Obviously the reason we are taking about Bush is Because that is how our debate began.
Our discussion began on post #20 in this thread and it had nothing to do with Bush. You injected Bush into the discussion later on.
But hey, I understand how hard honesty is for you Obama supporters. I mean he lies so its typical his supporter would follow suit.
Obviously the reason we are taking about Bush is Because that is how our debate began.
Our discussion began on post #20 in this thread and it had nothing to do with Bush. You injected Bush into the discussion later on.
But hey, I understand how hard honesty is for you Obama supporters. I mean he lies so its typical his supporter would follow suit.
You asked me for proof about Obama's job growth verses Bush. I provided it. You then brought up the growing labor force.
You see how that works?
There never were any promises. That is a lie perpetrated by you and no one else. There was an analysis that outlined what would or could happen if specific policies were enacted.People complaining that the promised benefits of Supply Side Economics never materialized.....the rich just kept the money,is not class warfare
The left coined the stupid phrase, "supply side".
No one knows if those policies would or could have worked to better the entire country. The Democrats have obstructed all efforts to help people kick their dependency on government and to get involved in their own wealth creation.
Now, don't let you head explode because someone refuted your position. Take a deep breath and repeat the mantra...."They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse
In the 1980s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagans budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a Trojan Horse that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. Trickle-Down was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:
"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."
Typical bumper sticker. With the exception of an opinion for your #1 reply, everything else you posted has nothing to do with the OP..
Two part question:
1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?
2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?
I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.
.
1. Abso-fucking-lutely. 1% control 43% of the wealth. The top 20% control 87% of the wealth. The bottom
2. I would return tax rates to what they were before Reagan fucked everything up. There would be some tax incentives for job creation, but the rich should pay their fair share.
3. I would scrap every idiotic trade treaty that makes American workers compete with child labor in China. (We'll never win that fight.)
4. I would invest enough money into first rate infrastructure.
5. I would give OSHA, the EPA, the IRS, and the SEC some real teeth. No more Club Feds for Corporate Crooks. They go to the same prisons the rest of us go to.
Try again.
Like I said this is a consumer based economy. Consumer spending represents 70% of our economy. If more and more money is concentrated at the top the less the lower classes have to spend. That is why crises are inevitable. The middle class, one of the main driving forces for the economy, is shrinking.
Secondly, how could raising the wage drive inflation? Also, the hike on prices would depend on the actual wage increase. If it was raised, say $3, the actual increase in prices would be small. Finally, prices would likely go back down because with higher wages comes more consumer spending. That will boost the economy. If it doesn't lower prices right away it would still create jobs. The job loss from a $3 raise would be about 500,000 jobs (from the CBO and that's a liberal estimate).
Any economy has two distinct components. Wealth creation, and wealth distribution. Without wealth creation, there is no wealth to distribute. Not so difficult to understand.
You can babble on about consumer spending being 70% of the economy, and all that demonstrates is that you know nothing about how an economy actually works. If you did know how an economy actually works, you wouldn't be bemoaning income/wealth inequaltiy. That has no real meaning except to incite ignorant people.
As long as sufficient wealth is being created to support the population according to the skills, knowledge, and labor of that population, then everyone in that population is fully compensated for their contribution, and who has the rest of the wealth is inconsequental to any of them.
Our economy, and the world economy, is suffering because not enough wealth is being created to support the population. Left wingers are sure that we can confiscate enough from those who have excess wealth to make up the difference. That would be a very short term solution, and when the excess wealth ended, so would the economy. This has been amply demonstrated everywhere it has been tried.
We need to increase wealth creation, and the only way to do that is to encourage the creation of wealth through tax policy and regulatory policy. Exploiting our natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., is one large source of wealth creation. Adding value through manufacturing is another. Agriculture is also a wealth generator, but does not carry the multiplier benefits of the first two.
Dude are you even listening to yourself? You're sayin that wealth creation is down. Nothing about that makes any sense. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nations weath. Instead of distributig said wealth, they are keeping it.
You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.
